> <River rdf:ID="Yangtze">
> <length>
> <LengthMeasure>
> <transform rdf:resource='#LengthInKilometers'/>
> <number>6300</number>
> </LengthMeasure>
> </length>
> </River>
I have three questions:
1. I believe that what we are proposing is that the above represents
"Best Practice" in expressing a length value. Do you agree?
2. What are the advantages of expressing it as above versus, say, this
way:
<River rdf:ID="Yangtze">
<length rdf:parseType="Resource">
<rdf:value>6300</rdf:value>
<units rdf:resource='#LengthInKilometers'/>
</length>
</River>
3. Getting back to the original problem ... Suppose that Document #1
contains this description:
<rdf:Description>
<length>
<LengthMeasure>
<transform rdf:resource='#LengthInKilometers'/>
<number>6300</number>
</LengthMeasure>
</length>
</rdf:Description>
And Document #2 contains this description:
<rdf:Description>
<length>
<LengthMeasure>
<transform rdf:resource='#LengthInMiles'/>
<number>3906</number>
</LengthMeasure>
</length>
</rdf:Description>
An application that receives these two documents should be able to
recognize that the two resources have the same length value, just
expressed using different transforms. What role should an OWL ontology
play in assisting the application in understanding the relationship
between these two length values?
/Roger